Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Doctor Strange


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Alternative versions of Doctor Strange

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG, overly expansive in-universe plot dump that should have been summarized in the main article per WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to Doctor Strange per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom. There is nothing here to merge, article is entirely OR and SYNTH. Article is a CONTENTFORK and does not meet GNG, BEFORE showed only fancruft articles. If someone ever creates content at main article that is sourced properly a redirect could be created then, but as of right now, nothing is there, everything here is OR and shouldn't be merged, so a redirect is meaningless.   // Timothy ::  talk  14:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is just a spin-off from the main article and, insofar as it's a list of the various takes on the character, it passes WP:LISTN – see Strangest of the Strange, for example. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep due to volume and interestingness. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect or merge I can see how this is redundant with the Doctor Strange article with not much to cover outside of various plot summaries and excerpts. But there has been a consistent practice to merge comic characters with similar non-notable spinouts. See the AFDs for: Gambit, Storm, Jean Grey, Venom, The Thing, and Rogue, all of which were merged or redirected. Daredevil was deleted, but that's an outlier. I'm sure I missed a few others. I think we should always strive to WP:PRESERVE and use alternatives to deletion. (Pardon the copy-paste rationale, which I used at a similar AFD for Deadpool, but the rationale is truly about consistent best practice across many similar articles). Archrogue (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been brought up already at Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Mary Jane Watson and Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Kitty Pryde, but saying "several others were deleted" on every nomination is very poor reasoning. At least a few of these (including Alternative versions of Batman and arguably Alternative versions of Deadpool) actually have passed both WP:GNG and WP:LISTN, but were deleted purely on poorly handled nominations and bandwagon voting such as this. If there is a precedent here, it's a weak one.  Dark knight  2149  07:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment above amounts to "spoiled grapes". They didn't like the consensus on previous discussions, and they're trying to use those failed arguments to impact this discussion. The consensus on the other discussions was clear. These OR/SYNTH articles are not appropriate for an article.  // Timothy ::  talk  07:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not spoiled grapes at all. The fact that your only responses have been "But I got them deleted! IT WORKED!" proves my point. I'm sorry if you dislike WP:LISTN or WP:GNG, but all of my concerns have been rooted both in policy, procedure, and that many of the votes have been as slim/cookie-cutter as the nominations themselves, usually from the same exact users, citing the same reasons that often boil down to WP:ITSCRUFT or WP:PERNOM.


 * This isn't everyone, mind you. There have been a lot of good faith users who have been voting "delete" on a lot of stuff (including stuff that should be deleted), but when at least 3-4 one-note deletionists and occasionally 1-2 one-note inclusionists are guaranteed to show up on every nomination, that isn't exactly helpful.


 * There have also been a tonne of nominations in the last year-and-a-half that haven't cited a valid rationale at all. For example, filing 500 nominations because "The article fails to establish notablity" or "The article is poorly written" flies in the face of both WP:DELREASON and every deletion policy/guideline on the books.


 * Also, don't list off policies and guidelines unless you know what they mean. Your nominations have had nothing to do with original research (making stuff up) or synthesis (claiming that two sources combine to say something they don't), they have to do with articles that primarily cite primary sources. Still bad, but hardly the same thing.  Dark knight  2149  08:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete- excessive minutiae about various incarnations of a fictional character. All the sources in this article are primary, and I cannot find any secondary sources that treat "Alternative versions of Doctor Strange" as a topic. At best you could find something about individual incarnations, though even that is a sketchy prospect, but combining them into one topic absolutely is WP:SYNTH. The main Doctor Strange article is already crufty enough and would not be improved by merging any of this dubious content there. Reyk YO! 10:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not synthesis. There is an editorial from a reliable news source discussing the topic right here and there are primary sources in the article. For something to be synthesis, there has to be an actual claim being made, and in this instance, it's just listing off versions of Doctor Strange.
 * (To be clear, I am not voting "Keep" on this nomination. I don't see enough coverage for it to pass GNG. My response above was questioning copy/pasting the same weak WP:SUPPORT vote on every nomination. Bandwagon voting such as this has been a lot more common than you would think. When my laptop is fixed, I'm most likely going to file an RfC on AFD reform, since it is clear that several of the recurring voters and a few of the nominators aren't following deletion criteria or aren't aware that AfD isn't general clean-up. Example. There is also a lot of WP:PERNOM and WP:ITSCRUFT going around, mostly from the same voters on multiple nominations. I'm surprised an administrator hasn't noticed or cracked down on it by now.)  Dark  knight  2149  07:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pure plot referenced to primary sources, fails NFICTION. No objection if anyone wants to merge a few sentences back to the main article, but this is clealry excessive detail. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Piotrus. Only referenced to primary sources, but wouldn't object if someone summarized a few sentences for the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:NFICTION including WP:GNG and WP:WAF due to excessive detail from primary sources. Jontesta (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence that this meets WP:NFICTION; quite the reverse. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.